Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • rentmekid
    • By rentmekid 13th Jun 17, 2:36 PM
    • 75Posts
    • 29Thanks
    rentmekid
    landlord bashing
    • #1
    • 13th Jun 17, 2:36 PM
    landlord bashing 13th Jun 17 at 2:36 PM
    After reading a number of posts/replies on this forum, I have noticed that many people hate the idea of someone owning more than 1 property and renting out.


    Frequent comments are: "people cant afford to buy one property, why should you have 2", or similar.


    At the end of the day, a private landlord is providing a similar service to the housing association, so why the hatred, or is it jealousy?


    Also, its not the Landlords fault that someone cant afford a house.


    Are my view justified?
Page 5
    • Red-Squirrel
    • By Red-Squirrel 13th Jun 17, 9:56 PM
    • 2,555 Posts
    • 6,843 Thanks
    Red-Squirrel
    <g>



    Intended by whom...?
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    You know full well what I mean!

    If its going to be an AST, its going to be someone's home. Homes are too important to be business, I think they should be in the public sector if they are not owner occupied.

    I know its not popular, but that's my view!
    • Crashy Time
    • By Crashy Time 13th Jun 17, 9:59 PM
    • 5,880 Posts
    • 2,319 Thanks
    Crashy Time
    I suppose it depends on whether you just look at the costs on the day of purchase/move in.

    If I still had the flat, say I was paying 230 now, and I'd have over 70k in equity.

    The person next door would be paying 750 to live in the exact same space in the exact same location, without the equity or the security. Even if you take into account the service charge and ground rent I'd still be paying, my monthly cost to live there (before bills) is in fact less than half.

    If the landlord who owned next door bought it at the same time and price I did, especially if they bought with cash, they'd be laughing all the way to the bank!
    Originally posted by Red-Squirrel

    Are they though, that is the question, how do you know they don`t stay for a month or two then jump into a 500 p.m flat?
    • LdnFtB
    • By LdnFtB 13th Jun 17, 10:11 PM
    • 97 Posts
    • 100 Thanks
    LdnFtB
    Mmm. From a quick quiz through, I'm not sure where you're getting those figures. Perhaps you could clarify?
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    Thank-you for taking the time to read through the report and the annexes, makes for a much better discussion.

    I'm afraid that I left the spreadsheet with my workings out on my office PC. From the top of my head I discounted social sector units (which wouldn't be available to either OO or Landlords) and worked out ratios of ownership on the remainder. If I still have the workings out I'll share them tomorrow.
    • Crashy Time
    • By Crashy Time 13th Jun 17, 10:11 PM
    • 5,880 Posts
    • 2,319 Thanks
    Crashy Time
    https://www.property118.com/buy-sell-hold-get-altogether/99898/


    One solution is to start "Caning the rents" apparently. I might even start a thread on this at some point
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 14th Jun 17, 6:09 AM
    • 16,611 Posts
    • 41,147 Thanks
    FBaby
    I do think there are people for whom renting is a better option, but I don't think private landlords should be the ones to benefit
    This very much sums up the attitude about LL on this forum. It assumes that all LLs have bought a second property for the sole purpose of earning additional income. It also assumes that all LLs are greedy and will want to make as much profit as possible at the detriment of the customer. It assumes that LLs make a nice profit each month, which they spend laughing at its poor tenant who has no choice but to accept all the conditions.

    It forgets that a large number of tenants have become so through changes in situations rather than them looking to become so. It forgets that many LL will not make 1 profit once all costs/tax/mortgage is taken into account, and for some, it will even cost them each month. It forgets that for a number of LL, the only benefit of being a LL is the investment in equity that will serve as a pension for their future, ie. save the tax payers later in life.

    So is it so bad that a LL could 'benefit' when it suits the tenant, a tenant who might very well one day become a LL themselves one day?
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 14th Jun 17, 7:49 AM
    • 17,175 Posts
    • 15,483 Thanks
    AdrianC
    It assumes that all LLs have bought a second property for the sole purpose of earning additional income.
    Originally posted by FBaby
    There is no other reason to undertake ANY business activity.

    It assumes that LLs make a nice profit each month
    It's a very poor business which isn't run with the intent of making a profit, no matter what the business does.

    It forgets that many LL will not make 1 profit once all costs/tax/mortgage is taken into account, and for some, it will even cost them each month.
    Then those landlords should be looking at how to improve their business, or get out of it.

    It forgets that for a number of LL, the only benefit of being a LL is the investment in equity that will serve as a pension for their future, ie. save the tax payers later in life.
    Then those people are fools, because they are making a very unpredictable investment decision, wrapped in a very poor tax situation compared to proper pension investments. They are either buying in to that investment at the wrong time in the cycle, or failing to take their profit at an ideal time.

    Long-term capital gain is a side benefit from a residential lettings business. It should never be the long-term aim, especially when short-term income is lacking - or even negative.

    But you'll notice I snipped swathes of your text. That was deliberate - because you are making one huge leap of logic. Profit and sensible business management are NOT incompatible with providing a good environment for your tenants. Quite the opposite... Happy tenants are good, long-term tenants. A good property to live in is one that gives low maintenance costs and few voids.
    • LadyL2013
    • By LadyL2013 14th Jun 17, 8:18 AM
    • 157 Posts
    • 120 Thanks
    LadyL2013
    They sound very unusual figures. Can you give any examples?
    430 mortgage for a 90% LTV would be around 105k purchase price.

    Or are you meaning interest only mortgage payments? If so, that may allow you around 230k purchase price, but those loans are very hard to obtain these days without having some kind of other repayment vehicle in place. What were you thinking of, and how much monthly allowance are you making?

    And what about when interest rates rise, as they will inevitably do?
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    Well that is the figure I am looking at for a monthly payment. I have saved since I was a teenager for a 30k deposit and I can only JUST afford the cheapest properties in my area. 1 bed properties here start at 150k - 160k. Not an interest only mortgage.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 14th Jun 17, 8:31 AM
    • 17,175 Posts
    • 15,483 Thanks
    AdrianC
    Well that is the figure I am looking at for a monthly payment. I have saved since I was a teenager for a 30k deposit and I can only JUST afford the cheapest properties in my area. 1 bed properties here start at 150k - 160k. Not an interest only mortgage.
    Originally posted by LadyL2013
    Like I said - best rate for a 90% mortgage is 2.49%. If you're looking at a lower LtV, you may get a better rate. If you're looking at just an intro discount, then you may get a better rate, but that WILL end before you've blinked, so is very unwise to budget on... That was based on 25yrs - a longer term may give you a slightly lower payment, but a much higher total cost.

    What rates/products/term are you looking at?

    At 150k with a 120k mortgage, you'd be looking at 80% LTV - assuming you have other money for fees etc. That gets you 1.75% from Coventry BS, from the mortgage best buy page here.

    Good luck!
    • rentmekid
    • By rentmekid 14th Jun 17, 9:48 AM
    • 75 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    rentmekid
    OP hasn't come back to add anything further to the discussion so I suspect his intention was to try and stir up an argument.
    Originally posted by fairy lights

    sorry for not being glued to this thread you muppet
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 14th Jun 17, 10:36 AM
    • 15,118 Posts
    • 14,796 Thanks
    Guest101
    I think there needs to be regulation, yes. I'm not saying there shouldn't be rental properties of all kinds, of course there should be, but I also think there needs to be more fairness in the housing market, which there currently isn't.



    Yes, you are right. I mean BTL, rather than cash buyer. I apologise, it has been a long day!

    Perhaps where you live, maybe. Where I live rental payments are nearly a double a mortgage payment and that's before you add bills. For example, on a 1 bed property where I am my monthly mortgage would be approx 430, an identical house is (looking on Rightmove right now) the very cheapest I can find is 720pcm without bills and it's not in the best condition. A house share alone will set you back 500.



    I just think the system needs to be fairer. I'm not sure exactly how it may be done, but the bottom of the market is absolutely strangled. Maybe X % of starter homes can be rentals (to make sure that people who want to rent have their needs met), then another x% of houses for sale have FTB as priority (as long as FTB is offering at or above asking price). Again, I don't know exactly the way to make it work, but I think you'll struggle to find anyone currently in the situation who will tell you the system is fair or isn't entirely skewed towards BTL.
    Originally posted by LadyL2013


    ok...


    1: some people don't want to live in your little rabbit hutch starter homes. So I think you've already made a presumption that FTB will only buy those / people will choose to rent those.


    2: Life isn't fair, whoever told you otherwise was lying to you.


    3. I don't want a fair system. I want a competitive one, where people who actually work hard and succeed are rewarded. I disagree wholeheartedly with rewarding failure.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 14th Jun 17, 10:40 AM
    • 15,118 Posts
    • 14,796 Thanks
    Guest101
    Yes, yes it is, but that's a big subject for another day. Suffice to say that 80% of 1 bed flats and 50% of 2 bed flats are owned by landlords who for a variety of reasons can outbid FtB's (at least until recently).

    But I think this thread - AST Eviction due to pregnancy - is a perfect example of why landlords get (and deserve) so much grief. Complete ignorance of the law on the part of the landlord leading to an illegal attempt at eviction, and no doubt accompanied by an attitude that they're doing the world a favour by providing housing.

    In over a decade of renting I've met plenty of those types of landlords - amateurs who think that tenants should be grateful for what little they do - and the decent ones have been few and far between.
    Originally posted by LdnFtB


    80% of 1beds and 50% of 2 beds are owned by landlords?


    ...and 100% of that information is fabricated......
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 14th Jun 17, 10:45 AM
    • 17,175 Posts
    • 15,483 Thanks
    AdrianC
    80% of 1beds and 50% of 2 beds are owned by landlords?

    ...and 100% of that information is fabricated......
    Originally posted by Guest101
    Not fabricated. Cherry-picked, extrapolated and spun, perhaps.
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 14th Jun 17, 11:06 AM
    • 8,996 Posts
    • 9,889 Thanks
    AnotherJoe
    I have no issue with good landlords that are buying properties that FTB can't otherwise afford or doing up dilapidated properties.

    My issue comes with cash buyers competing against FTB's on houses that are well within their budget. An FTB only has a finite budget compared to many cash buyers and so in my and many people I knows experience, they lose out all the time to investors who can top even a very high offer from FTB. This means they then rent them out at a higher cost to people like FTB and it inflates the bottom of the property ladder and you can never get on it.

    You only have to go on Rightmove to see even a 1 bed property is very expensive, but a 2 or 3 bed isn't really that much more than a 1 bed.

    Personally, I'd like to see a law change that prohibits BTL from buying starter homes.
    Originally posted by LadyL2013
    Why are you conflating cash buyers with landlords?
    What is a "starter home"
    Why would cash buyers needlessly pay over the odds for a property (your implication) - if they are investors its important they keep within their budget to make the BTL work.
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 14th Jun 17, 11:08 AM
    • 8,996 Posts
    • 9,889 Thanks
    AnotherJoe
    !!!8220;OP hasn't come back to add anything further to the discussion so I suspect his intention was to try and stir up an argument.
    Originally posted by fairy lights !!!8221;

    @rentmekid "sorry for not being glued to this thread you muppet "

    Point proven
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 14th Jun 17, 11:21 AM
    • 15,118 Posts
    • 14,796 Thanks
    Guest101
    Not fabricated. Cherry-picked, extrapolated and spun, perhaps.
    Originally posted by AdrianC


    Ye, I did take a glance too.


    But the poster is manipulating the figures to suit the argument.
    • 00ec25
    • By 00ec25 14th Jun 17, 11:32 AM
    • 6,253 Posts
    • 5,781 Thanks
    00ec25
    Sorry, but a link would give you much more credibility
    Originally posted by Crashy Time
    credibility?

    Crashy Time?

    here is a link: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/oxymoron
    • LdnFtB
    • By LdnFtB 14th Jun 17, 11:34 AM
    • 97 Posts
    • 100 Thanks
    LdnFtB
    Not fabricated. Cherry-picked, extrapolated and spun, perhaps.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    Well, I don't think cherry picked is fair - extrapolated yes. I think it's fair to discount social sector units as they're not available to either owner occupiers or landlords, and look at how ownership is distributed for housing types within the private sector alone.

    Going off table AT2.2 of the second annex of the English Housing Survey the ownership distributions for private sector properties are as follows:

    1 Bed 1 Person Studio/Flat: 22% Owner Occupier / 78% Landlord
    1 Bed 2 Person Studio/Flat: 39% Owner Occupier / 61% Landlord
    2 Bed 3 Person Flat/House: 60% Owner Occupier / 40% Landlord
    2 bed 4 Person Flat/House: 63% Owner Occupier / 37% Landlord
    3 Bed 4 Person Flat/House: 76% Owner Occupier / 24% Landlord
    3 Bed 5 Person Flat/House: 82% Owner Occupier / 18% Landlord
    ....and so on in increasing proportions for owner occupiers.

    I apologise for remembering the wrong figures (and and derailing the conversation in that regard) . However I do think that the distribution does demonstrate that landlords own a) the majority of private sector 1 bed units and b) over a third of private sector 2 bed units.

    These are the types of properties which my rightmove continually tells me are 'ideal for first time buyers' and then also adds in 'or investors'. in my mind this quite clearly demonstrates that FtB's and landlords are in competition for the same housing stock.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 14th Jun 17, 12:04 PM
    • 15,118 Posts
    • 14,796 Thanks
    Guest101
    Well, I don't think cherry picked is fair - extrapolated yes. I think it's fair to discount social sector units as they're not available to either owner occupiers or landlords - Except for the right to buy scheme?..., and look at how ownership is distributed for housing types within the private sector alone. - With no data to suggest which are purpose built and which are converted properties?

    Going off table AT2.2 of the second annex of the English Housing Survey the ownership distributions for private sector properties are as follows:
    1: Of the estimated 22.8 million households in England, 14.3 million or 63% were owner occupiers.
    2: the private rented sector accounted for 4.5 million or 20% of households.



    Those are your 2 headline figures.

    1 Bed 1 Person Studio/Flat: 22% Owner Occupier / 78% Landlord
    1 Bed 2 Person Studio/Flat: 39% Owner Occupier / 61% Landlord
    2 Bed 3 Person Flat/House: 60% Owner Occupier / 40% Landlord
    2 bed 4 Person Flat/House: 63% Owner Occupier / 37% Landlord
    3 Bed 4 Person Flat/House: 76% Owner Occupier / 24% Landlord
    3 Bed 5 Person Flat/House: 82% Owner Occupier / 18% Landlord
    ....and so on in increasing proportions for owner occupiers. - Indeed, because people are choosing not to buy studios and one bedroom properties? Typically people buy once they are more financially stable, usually with a partner, possibly looking to start a family. That's just what the market dictates ( I still don't agree with excluding social housing, but that's up to you)

    I apologise for remembering the wrong figures (and and derailing the conversation in that regard) . However I do think that the distribution does demonstrate that landlords own a) the majority of private sector 1 bed units - Yes that's true. and b) over a third of private sector 2 bed units. - Indeed

    These are the types of properties which my rightmove continually tells me are 'ideal for first time buyers' and then also adds in 'or investors'. in my mind this quite clearly demonstrates that FtB's and landlords are in competition for the same housing stock.
    Originally posted by LdnFtB


    Oh I see, so this is a problem with what a company is telling you in it's marketing material. Now I understand.


    FTBs aren't usually buying the studio or one bed options by choice.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 14th Jun 17, 12:13 PM
    • 17,175 Posts
    • 15,483 Thanks
    AdrianC
    I think it's fair to discount social sector units
    Originally posted by LdnFtB
    Suffice to say that 80% of 1 bed flats and 50% of 2 bed flats are owned by landlords
    Originally posted by LdnFtB
    Can you see the difference...?

    You're instantly discarding up to 40-odd% of the total housing stock in each category... Yet we're constantly told that "Social housing is rocking horse"... No, it isn't. It's just that security of tenure makes it available rarely, and demand outstrips supply. Where is that demand coming from, if not from people who are currently in the private rental market, and not able or willing to look at ownership?

    Going off table AT2.2 of the second annex of the English Housing Survey the ownership distributions for private sector properties are as follows:

    1 Bed 1 Person Studio/Flat: 22% Owner Occupier / 78% Landlord
    1 Bed 2 Person Studio/Flat: 39% Owner Occupier / 61% Landlord
    1x single is only 6% of all 1x bed properties.
    Private rental is 31% of all 1x bed, and 62% of all private sector 1x bed.
    That's a BIG difference from "80% of all"...

    2 Bed 3 Person Flat/House: 60% Owner Occupier / 40% Landlord
    2 bed 4 Person Flat/House: 63% Owner Occupier / 37% Landlord
    Again, they're not two equal-size categories, although they're less uneven than 1x bed.

    About 42% of all private-sector 2x bed are private rental. Some way short of the 50% figure...

    However I do think that the distribution does demonstrate that landlords own a) the majority of private sector 1 bed units and b) over a third of private sector 2 bed units.
    Agreed with that - but that's not the same thing as the original claim of "80%/50% of all", is it?

    These are the types of properties which my rightmove continually tells me are 'ideal for first time buyers' and then also adds in 'or investors'. in my mind this quite clearly demonstrates that FtB's and landlords are in competition for the same housing stock.
    Bear in mind many of the "or investors" properties will just not be suitable for any mortgage buyers - there's a variety of reasons for that, but they are often simply unmortgageable for some reason, usually relating to leases or commercial property restrictions. It doesn't matter whether that's a BtL buyer or a potential owner-occupier.

    Equally, many properties are unavailable to potential landlords, because of lease restrictions on lettings - which can also dissuade potential owner-occupiers, because they think they may wish to let out as and when they move on in the future.
    • Crashy Time
    • By Crashy Time 14th Jun 17, 12:17 PM
    • 5,880 Posts
    • 2,319 Thanks
    Crashy Time
    http://news.sky.com/story/applications-from-eu-nurses-to-work-in-uk-down-96-since-brexit-vote-10913295


    The supply of people up for paying 750 p.m for a dodgy flat is dwindling, just wait til they cut benefits for EU nationals......
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

339Posts Today

3,864Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I've decided my weekend starts here while the sun's glow is still baskable. So I'm signing off. Have a great weeke? https://t.co/9FxNEpDs6p

  • No not correct. The big six do, but you can get fixed tariffs guaranteed not to rise and about 25% cheaper. Just tr? https://t.co/B2ft5OS3Ig

  • Baaaa! Scottish Power has bleated and followed the herd, today announcing it's putting up energy prices by 5.5%. R? https://t.co/vi3hBxo4Hn

  • Follow Martin